Is that a HDR?

[Garbz]

[vent]Ok gotta vent. What the hell is wrong with people these days. It seems every second person thinks even a slightly processed photo is a HDR. I won't even touch on the "HDR from one file approach" but seriously guys, the tool is called "curves" get to know it and stop. HDR has "HIGHER DYNAMIC RANGE"

Contrast is not the same as dynamic range. Don't believe me? Google it.

[/vent] damn I was hopping for a good red font and flaming letters.

 

[Alex_B]

what you say is true.

Oh, what most people really mean when they say HDR is a somehow tonemapped image, no matter if it is truly HDR or not.

I personally do not like the effect of obvious tonemapping anyway, but I do like some HDR images.

 

[Battou]

It's for this reason I have become disfond of HDR imagery. When properly done they's spectacular, but nine times out of ten I find they're improperly done, over done and/or fake. I mean common now seriously.

 

[Drake]

I hate these lame (not that I am a pro) HDR photos looking as if they were drawn or something, with this weird color transitions and stuff. Seriously, people should either learn to make proper realistic HDR or not bother at all...

 

[Antithesis]

I actually had my photography teacher ask me if a shot was an HDR (which it wasn't). I'm not sure if the image was just overprocessed, or if it was just flat, I was still surprised though.

It seems like everone is doing it because it can take a pretty boring image and give it a huge Wow-factor. Give me a properly worked silver print over HDR any day of the week.

 

[Garbz]

Yeah the weird thing I was talking about was a in a thread in the beyond the basic forum atm about car shots not looking as good as others. The image wasn't even tone mapped and 2 people thought it was HDR. I mean the word HDR is slowly becoming a synonym for post processing... stop it .

 

[ernie]

While I agree with what you're saying I must admit I like some HDR's. This one for example: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=110464
I mean that is a great image to me, don't care if it looks realistic or not.

 

[LaFoto]

Well, it is to my understanding that Garbz is not actually wanting to discuss the merits of true HDR images, but much rather the fact that some people today tend to take ANY tone-mapped photo for "HDR", which it cannot be when there was no additional range (by adding differently exposed second and third - and more - photos to the one in question).

Of course you can work with a single .jpg and (like I often do) throw the lasso tool around selected areas (well-feathered lasso!), play with the levels for the selected area, and thus play with the levels for OTHER, equally selected areas, too. But that cannot and does not change the dynamic RANGE of my photo. It selectively changes the shadows, highlights, and midtones according to what I want to do, but does not INCREASE the dynamic range.

But, and that is what Garbz laments about, even those - only just tone-mapped - photos are often discussed as being possible HDR images. That's the point in question here: tone-mapped photos aren't HDR. The dynamic range has not been increased since there was only ONE range to begin with.

I think that is the point.

 

[ernie]

Yeah I know what he meant, I was just surprised as to how many people say they dislike HDR's. If done right they make a very fine picture in my opinion.

 

[LaFoto]

True, true.
This_thread might show you that I am not adamantly against trying out HDR, either .

 

[Arch]

I do feel Grabz pain.... and while i dont mind the occasional HDR, i think the act of artistic photography in capturing light can get lost.
Alot of newbies can be so impressed by the amount of detail in a HDR that its all they want to achieve themselves and so 'more detail' becomes their whole endeavour in photography.
Light and the mood it creates however is then lost, so instead of feeling a sensation when viewing a moody landscape shot for example, the sensation is replaced with a very detailed but sterile emptiness.
This is why i try to increase the range in certain areas only, but still retain the directional light source.

But hey this is just one mans opinion... one thing that bugs me, that people say 'an HDR'... because as we all know that would then read 'an high dynamic range' which doesn't make any sense... and believe me ALOT of people say that =/

 

[confucious]

I agree with the OP - a lot of people are beginning to think that well done shots with excellent texture, contrast, and colour are Tonemapped or HDR. It is fairly easy in most cases to see a bump in curves or contrast, just as it is fairly easy in most cases to see that HDR has been done.

I guess what's frustrating is that some people may start to think HDR is necessary to get a really intriguing interesting photo, which of course it is not...it is all about eye.

I only learnt about HDR a couple of weeks ago and love it as it provides an extra avenue to creativity...the pics you can make are like artwork, but they are not better than the original(s) in my opinion, just different.

 

[Helen B]

Completely off topic, but as it has been raised:

... a HDR ...

... one thing that bugs me, that people say 'an HDR'... because as we all know that would then read 'an high dynamic range' which doesn't make any sense... and believe me ALOT of people say that =/

- including the US Government's Style Manual

That gives the following example:

an H-U-D (ie HUD pronounced as three letters h u d

a HUD (ie HUD pronounced as an acronym - as the word hud)

The choice of indefinite article is not based on the expanded abbreviation, but on how the abbreviation itself is pronounced.


Best,
Helen

 

[Arch]

uh.. really? well... damn you!!!

All i know is that it doesn't sound right when i read it in my head! :greenpbl:

 

[Helen B]

Indeed. A lot of the ways in which abbreviations are commonly used stop making sense when you mentally expand them as you read them. How many times do you see EV value? Anybody who does the automatic expansion thing in their head will realise that that is wrong.

Best,
Helen